Public forum debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Public Forum Debate, sometimes called by its former names, Controversy Debate or Ted Turner Debate, and sometimes called Crossfire Debate, is a relatively new style of debate practiced in National Forensic League and National Catholic Forensic League competitions. The event is gradually being adopted by other high-school debate leagues.

1 Overview
2 Mechanics
3 Judging
4 Resolutions
5 History
6 External links

[edit] Overview

Public Forum Debate can be compared to a nationally-televised debate, such as Crossfire in which the debators argue a topic of national importance in terms that a common person would understand. Similar to Policy Debate, the debate in Public Forum Debate is conducted by teams of two people, alternating speeches for their side. Unlike Policy Debate it is far more dependent on the speaking presentation of the debater rather than the research skills of the speaker. It is a less formal, less research-intensive form of NEDA Debate.

[edit] Mechanics

Public Forum Debate begins with what is known as the "coin toss," in which one team tosses a coin and the other team calls it. The debaters of the team that wins the coin toss are allowed to choose from two options - either decide which side they want to represent (either the "pro" side, for the resolution, or the "con" side, against the resolution) or whether they want to speak first or second. After the coin toss winners make a selection, the other team is allowed to choose from the remaining option. Unlike in Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate, in Public Forum Debate, the proposition, or affirmative, side does not necessarily speak first.

After sides and speaking order have been decided, the debate begins with the first team's first four-minute constructive speech. In this speech, one of the members of the team gives arguments either for or against the resolution, depending on which side the team is speaking for. Strictly speaking, the rules of Public Forum Debate dictate that when debaters speak (both for speeches and crossfire), they should face forward towards the judge, usually from behind a lectern. However, it is customary for debaters to remain seated and face each other during crossfire, in violation of this rule, provided that the judge for that round and/or the tournament director chooses to allow it. Next, the other side is permitted to give its first four-minute constructive speech in which not only arguments may be presented, but rebuttals to arguments from the first speech as well. However, rebuttals are typically not presented until a team's second constructive, and are in fact frowned upon, and the first constructive generally consists exclusively of prepared material.

Following this speech, the first speaker from the first team joins the first speaker from the second team at the podium and the first three-minute "crossfire" begins. The first speaker begins crossfire by asking a question to the second speaker. In crossfire, the two debaters directly ask each other questions and answer questions of their opponent. Crossfire may be used, like cross-examination, to ask revealing questions in an attempt to expose a weakness in the opponents' arguments, but it is often used as a way to further develop and attack arguments through discourse.

After crossfire, the second speaker (the one that has not spoken yet) of the first team gives another four-minute constructive speech in which he or she generally attempts to rebut the entire case of his or her opponent. Then, the second speaker of the second team gives a four-minute constructive speech following this same format. Following this speech, another three-minute crossfire ensues.

The first speaker of the first team then gives a two-minute summary speech of the debate, which includes further rebuttal of the opponents case and reiteration of the first team's case, and the first speaker of the second team does the same. After this speech, all four debaters participate in "Grand Crossfire" sitting down. Grand Crossfire is similar to crossfire except that all four debaters can ask and answer questions of each other. The speaker that gave the first summary speech begins Grand Crossfire by asking the first question.

After Grand Crossfire, each team's second speaker has a chance to give a one-minute speech called the "Final Focus," the first team giving this speech first. This speech is also referred to commonly as "The Last Shot," a holdover from the event's earlier days. In the Final Focus , the speaker is given one last chance to explain exactly why his or her team has won the round. No new arguments are allowed in the Final Focus. This speech is often the determining factor for a judge's decision in a closely contested round, as it allows the judge to hear which arguments/evidence each team views as the most important to his or her case, and summarizes the entire debate.

In NFL sponsored tournaments the winner of a debate round earns 6 NFL points, and the loser of the round earns 3 NFL points. These are the same points given for Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

A Public Forum debate follows this timing schedule:

Team A: First Speaker: Constructive Speech	3 to 4 minutes
Team B: First Speaker: Constructive Speech	3 to 4 minutes
Crossfire (between first speakers)	3 minutes
Team A: Second Speaker: Rebuttal	3 to 4 minutes
Team B: Second Speaker: Rebuttal	3 to 4 minutes
Crossfire (between second speakers)	3 minutes
Team A: First Speaker: Summary	2 minutes
Team B: First Speaker: Summary	2 minutes
Grand Crossfire (All speakers)	3 minutes
Team A: Second Speaker: Final Focus	1 minute
Team B: Second Speaker: Final Focus	1 minute

Each team also has a total of two minutes of "prep" time ("downtime"), which they can use before any of their speeches. This time is spent at the debaters' discretion. Each team is allowed to use its allotted prep time in whatever increments it chooses. The debaters ask the judge to use prep time (as needed), and then tell the judge when they are ready to begin their next speech. The judge then stops the clock and records the time remaining of the original two minutes, which that team can use later.

[edit] Judging

Public Forum Debate is designed to appeal to an audience of "lay judges" with no background in the rules of Public Forum debate or debate theory. This was designed to make the format of Public Forum debate more accessible to the general public. Rounds are typically judged by an adult, often an assistant coach, parent of a competitor, or a member of the community. In a typical one-day tournament, each team will debate four rounds. In two-day tournaments, each team usually debates six preliminary rounds with possible outrounds. Judges decide the rounds based on which team they feel has better convinced them of their side and has made the better arguments. Unlike Public Forum's relatives, Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate, the winner of the debate should not be weighed on "technical merit" alone.

[edit] Resolutions

Resolutions (topics to be debated) change every month. Past resolutions include:

January 2007: "Resolved: That lobbyists negatively influence the legislative process in the United States."
December 2006: "Resolved: Colleges and Universities in the United States should end their early admission programs."
November 2006: "Resolved: That participating in multinational diplomatic efforts is beneficial to U. S. interests."
October 2006: "Resolved: Current immigration laws in the United States should be enforced."
September 2006: "Resolved: That the benefits of NASA's space exploration programs justify the costs."
June 2006 (nationals topic): "Resolved: That the United States government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
April 2006: "Resolved: That the American media work against the best interest of the American public."
March 2006: "Resolved: That big box retailers benefit the communities in which they are located."
February 2006: "Resolved: That the policy decisions of the current Israeli government toward the Palestinian state have improved prospects for peace in the Middle East."
January 2006: "Resolved: In the United States, public high school science curriculum should include the study of the Theory of Intelligent Design." (Note: At least one state, North Dakota, has banned this topic and chosen to use the February topic. Some Missouri tournaments have banned this topic and chosen to use the September 2005 topic.)
December 2005: "Resolved: That the National Basketball Association (NBA) should rescind its dress code.
November 2005: "Resolved: That the United States federal government should fund Hurricane Katrina relief and rebuilding by ending President Bush's tax cuts.
October 2005: "Resolved: That the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism."
September 2005: "Resolved: In the United States, colleges and universities should be permitted to pay stipends to their Division I athletes."
May 2005 (nationals topic): Resolved: That, when a choice is required for public high schools in the United States, government funding should prioritize vocational education over college preparatory education.
October 2004: Resolved: In the United States, public opinion polls positively affect the election process.
September 2004: Resolved: The United States should establish a cabinet-level position to oversee its entire intelligence community.
May 2004 (nationals topic): Resolved: All young adults in every nation should be required to perform at least one full year of national service. (May 2004 / Nationals topic)

See http://www.nflonline.org/Main/CurrentTopics for current topics.

[edit] History

First created by TRENT SIRWITZ along with J-RO langstonin 2002 as "Controversy," the event was soon renamed to "Ted Turner Debate" in early 2003 after Ted Turner, founder of CNN. In November, 2003, Ted Turner Debate was renamed to Public Forum Debate by the National Forensic League. Public Forum Debate is controversial because of its perceived challenge to high school policy debate, a more esoteric, but also much more rigorous, format. Most of this criticism seems to be in response to the quick rise in popularity of the format in schools across the country. Since the format emphasizes speaking style over evidence and heavy research, several small schools on limited budgets have been able to establish new debate programs. The format has also been criticized for the short time of the speeches which make constructing complicated and sophisticated arguments more difficult.